I'm gonna call the meeting to order and the city management has asked me to read a comment before we get the meeting started. I want to commend our city leadership team and the police department for the innovative thinking that went into the solution for the animal care and control. I know some of you are here for that. And hopefully this will answer some questions and give you the ability to actually go ask questions if you have them. Aligning animal care and control with community development and services will strengthen their existing partnership as well as streamline and enhance services to our residents. The new reporting structure will not change animal care or staff support It will allow more focused attention and dedicated resources free from the constraints of being under the HPD budget prioritization process where they often lose out to more critical public safety needs. Animal care and control will still be supported by Henderson Police Department when requested out in the field and all departments will continue to collaborate. This is just a reporting change to streamline operations. There are always ways to improve communications, but the timing of this announcement was planned specifically to give a great deal of advance notice to the effective team prior to the plan's transfer in July. Department meetings are already in progress to prepare for the transition. One of the biggest concerns was whether this change would impact our ability to issue criminal citations and fulfill the obligations under the new REBAs law. And the answer is that nothing will change. Animal control officers will continue to issue issue criminal citations for violations of Henderson Municipal Codes relating to animals, and HPD will remain responsible for investigating felony animal neglect and cruelty cases. I want to assure you that the city remains deeply committed to the long-term success and sustainability of our animal shelter. And just as a reminder, we cannot respond to public comments from the dais, so if you have questions, we have set up the room next door to the council It's a council chamber conference room directly next door where there's actually staff from Community Development and Services and HPD that can answer your questions. If you still want to come make public comment after that, you still are able to do that, but we won't be able to answer those questions. So keep that in mind. And if you would like to go ask the questions, you just exit the council chambers. The meeting is on the right. The room is on the right. And then you can come back if you'd like. To make it easier for residents to voice their comments, there will be two public comment periods. There will be one at the beginning of the meeting designated for comments related to items on the agenda and one at the end of the meeting for general public comment. Public comment for designated public hearing items will be heard when the item is called. Speakers will be limited to three minutes to state their comments. This meeting is being video recorded and streamed live on the internet. Mrs. Harrell, please confirm posting and roll call. Madam Mayor, this meeting has been posted in accordance with Nevada Open Meeting Law. All members of the council are present, and you have a quorum. Thank you. Actually, before we do the pledge and the invocation, can I have Cub Scout Pack 947 please stand? We have them visiting with us today. They're going to... We asked them if they wanted to run the meeting and they didn't want to do that. But we're glad to have you here today to say the pledge. So now I would like to invite Donna Taft of Sin City Church up to the podium to give the invocation and then we'll have the Cub Scout troop followed to do the pledge. Almighty God, as the council comes together today, give them the wisdom to make decisions to improve our community. I pray your love may abound with them still more and more in knowledge and in all discernment. Now may your divine hand lead them by your grace and power. In his name, amen. to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Now is the time for our first public comment and before we begin, the City Clerk will make an announcement. Please note the City Council cannot take action or deliberate on matters that are not on the agenda. Therefore, issues raised during the final public comment period will be referred to the appropriate City Department for a response through a Contact Henderson case created by the City Clerk's office. Persons who would like to speak during any of the three public comment periods should sign up with the deputy city clerk managing the public comment queue in the vestibule in the entrance of chambers. When your name is called by a city clerk, please walk to the front of the podium, speak directly into the microphone, and state your first and last name, zip code. For the record, you will have three minutes to speak. All email, text, and social media messages to the City Council and City staff are subject to Nevada Public Records Act and the Nevada Open Meeting Law. Please do not sit, stand, or block the aisles, walkways, or doorways. As a reminder, the vestibule in the back of the chambers is reserved for working City staff and public safety personnel only. During the meeting, there will be the three opportunities for public comment. At the third public The comment period at the end of the meeting will be for your general public comments. During this period, comments may be offered on topics that are not on the agenda, but those comments should be limited to matters within the jurisdiction authority or control of the city. Thank you. Is there anybody in the queue? There is no one in the first public comment queue. Thank you. I'll close public comment. Ms. Garcia-Vos, are there any changes to the agenda? No, Mayor Romero. There are no changes to the agenda. Thank you. May I have a motion to accept the agenda as presented? Please vote. All council members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilwoman Cox, and it carries. Mayor and Council, your first portion of the agenda are proclamations, commendations, and presentations. Item number one is a proclamation, safe pools rule. 2025. It is community safety is one of our city's top priorities and we are consistently ranked as one of the safest cities in America. And yet tragically, accidental drowning is still leading cause of death and injury for children in southern Nevada. Last year, 38 submersion incidents were reported in Clark County and 74% of them involved children under the age of four. Through our firefighters we remain focused on drowning prevention and water safety awareness with safe pools rule public education campaign We are joined today by Jonathan Uffers vice president of Henderson professional fires fighters who will accept the proclamation I'd like to invite mayor and council to the gallery to present the proclamation and for a photo op And I believe we're going to run the PSA as well the hottest cities in America. And with that is a huge responsibility to keep our kids safe at the pool. Drownings are a leading cause of death for young children in Southern Nevada. So before you dive in, we need your help to ensure all pools remain a safe and fun place this summer. Patrol. Most tragedies can occur in seconds. Always keep an adult nearby. Protect. Install pool fencing, alarms, and locks. These protective barriers can save a life. And finally, prepare. Have a summer safety action plan. Includes swim lessons, and CPR classes for our little ones. Please spread the message and remind everyone, not just this summer, but every summer, that St. Paul's Rule! Thank you, Jonathan, for being here today. Our fire department does an amazing job of making people aware of how preventable drowning accidents are. They go out of their way every year to put out this public service announcement and to do a mock drowning so that people understand that it happens very, very quickly. And I want to give a shout out. Jonathan's kids were in the pool doing the PSA you just saw, and it was not warm that day. And they were troopers, and we want to thank them for that as well. I also want to mention that our Parks and Recreation Department has swim lessons that are available to all ages so that you can teach your kids to swim. They also have first aid classes and other ways, first aid and CPR so that you can be ready if an emergency should occur. We want to make sure that you have all the tools you need to keep your children safe and to remember the three Ps. And with that, we would like to proclaim May 2025 as Safe Pools Rule Month. And turn the mic over to you. Thank you, Mayor. On behalf of Local 1883, we just wanted to thank Mayor, Council, our city leadership, and our fire administration that support us every single year of bringing that message to the community. So just please remember, be safe by the pools this summer and watch out for each other, okay? Thank you. Item number two is a presentation of the North Star Award to Mayor Michelle Romero by Scouting America Las Vegas Area Council. Established in 2011 by the National Court of Honor, the North Star Award is one of the highest honors Scouting America may bestow upon individuals who are not registered members of the organization. Reserved for those whose leadership, generosity, and... vision have left a lasting mark on scouting. The award is a symbol of gratitude for extraordinary contributions made outside of formal membership. I would like to invite Matthew DeFalco, Chair of Government Affairs for the Scouting America Las Vegas Area Council to present the award. Welcome Matthew. Great to be here. Thank you so much for having us. Just some quick words for the mayor. Mayor Romero's commitment to Henderson is legendary for decades. She has served the city with distinction, initially as redevelopment agency manager, spearheading the transformative developments and revitalization of the Water Street District and attracting major developments like Cadence, Union Village, and Henderson Hospital, projects that have brought significant economic growth and job creation to our city. Her leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic further solidified her reputation as a compassionate and effective leader, prioritizing support for local businesses and enhancing community engagement. Henderson's recent Malcolm Baldrige National Award win reflects the excellence in governance and service that she has championed. Beyond her mayoral duties, Michelle's involvement in the Las Vegas Area Council has been consistent and impactful. As the Friends of Scouting community fundraiser for the El Dorado district, she forged essential connections with local businesses, fostering an understanding of the Scout's invaluable contributions to the community. Even after election to office, she remained actively engaged, consistently attending meetings and offering assistance whenever needed. Her understanding of our council and its needs is exemplary, making her a true leader within the community who supports the scouts. Mayor Romero embodies the spirit of service and commitment that we celebrate tonight. Her relentless dedication to improving Henderson's quality of life, coupled with her steadfast support of the Las Vegas Area Council, make her a truly deserving recipient of the North Star Award. Congratulations, Mayor. This was a surprise. When I saw it on the agenda, I thought it was maybe a reprimand for when I was a Cub Scout leader not doing such a great job or something, which was a very long time ago. I want to thank the Scouts for all that they do for our community and teaching kids to be prepared. And maybe I should have listened to that motto and been prepared for tonight. But thank you for your dedication to improving our kids' lives, teaching them leadership skills, teaching them life skills, and just bettering our community, preparing our leaders of the future. Thank you. This is a huge honor. I appreciate it very much. The next item on your agenda is the city manager's report. Good evening, mayor and council. I'm pleased to share that Fire Station 92 in West Henderson has been officially in service since May 7th. Fire Station 92 serves the West Henderson area with exceptional fire and medical services as part of our commitment to community safety. With nearly 60% of our general funds dedicated to public safety, expanding our fire department service is crucial to ensure we can provide our residents with fast response times and compassionate care. Congratulations to Fire Chief Vivier and the fire department. This week, it is National Public Works Week. I'm proud to recognize the hardworking men and women who ensure the upkeep of our city. Your dedication and contributions make Henderson a premier place to call home. Thank you to Lance Olson and his team. This week, we are also recognizing Emergency Services Week. Thank you to our crews for always going above and beyond the call of duty to ensure our residents receive life-saving services with integrity and respect. We appreciate your dedication and service to our community. And finally, it's also Economic Development Week. And I'm pleased to share that our Economic Development Team has been named an Economic Development an EDO award winner by business facilities for the third consecutive year. This recognition was earned in part to the outstanding impact of our small business assistance program. Congratulations to Director Jared Smith and the entire team. Thank you, Mayor and Council. That concludes this evening's City Manager's Report. The next section of your agenda is the consent agenda consisting of items four through 28. Unless an item is pulled for discussion, Council will take action on all consent agenda items with one motion. Thank you. May I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Please vote. All Council members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilwoman Larson. It carries. Mayor and Council, the next section of your agenda are public hearings. Item number 29 is a public hearing, Appeal of Decision AP 2-25 for MSP-2007-590030-A3, Master Sign Plan Amendment for Calico Ridge Commercial, and the recommendation is to affirm Planning Commission's decision of denial. Mayor and members of council, this is an appeal of an April 10, 2025 Planning Commission denial of a master sign plan to increase the height of a freestanding sign from a previously approved 34 feet 8 inches to 40 feet. The Planning Commission followed staff's recommendation and denied the request because they have not demonstrated a compelling need for the proposed height increase to the sign. Plus, they did not meet the approval criteria as outlined in the development code. Staff recommends council to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission recommendation of denial. Thank you, is the applicant here? Okay, this is a public hearing. I'll now open. If there's anybody wishing to speak on this topic, please come to the podium, speak directly into the mic, and you'll have three minutes to speak. There is no one in the queue for this item. I'll close the public hearing. Council, any questions or comments? So the applicant isn't here, but in our briefing, can you just go over what the options are? Yes, Mayor and Council, your options are, again, the staff recommendation was for denial. This went to a previous Planning Commission meeting. They brought in a 40-foot-tall sign. wasn't quite designed according to the one that you have today. Planning Commission asked them to try to redesign the sign, work with staff to build it within the 34 foot, 8 inches and bring something back. They did continue it. We worked with them. We designed a, well, they designed a new sign. They still maintained the 40 feet, but they did put an architectural element on top of the sign, but they did not reduce the height. The architectural element to the top of that is 40 feet to the top of the LED sign is slightly lower so they did increase the overall sign area probably roughly two and a half feet per the existing sign. Planning Commission had that discussion with them at Planning Commission, and at the Planning Commission, the applicant decided to bring the original plan that went to the first Planning Commission meeting and said, no, that's the plan that we would like for you to discuss, not the plan with the architectural element and the revised one that we worked with them for about two months on. So the Planning Commission recommended it So your options tonight is to uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial, which denies the appeal, or you can amend that Planning Commission decision and approve some other form of the sign if you'd like to do that. How many feet in the modified architectural design are we talking? So the plan that was reviewed The existing sign is 34 feet, 8 inches to the top of the architectural element. The new sign that was presented, it was 40 feet to the architectural, to the top of the EMS sign, so the top of any signage area would be 36 foot, 10 inches. But again, the overall sign is 40. So you're looking at roughly two extra feet to the sign for signage area. The applicant did put in their justification for appeal that they needed the space for tenant names. But if you look at the elevation, the tenant names do not go to the top. You've got a five foot tall LED sign or EMS sign at the top. So it would just be kind of a moving video or information about things on the property. It's not true tenant names that you're going to see easily. The tenant names go to about 30, 30 no. 36. Yeah, about 31 feet. So the tenants are that tall. And then you've got five more feet for an EMS. So staff's recommendation is to still follow Planning Commission's recommendation. Okay. And this is located out on Lake Mead Parkway. I've actually been out there recently. So it is in an area where homes are not affected by a taller sign. And it is, as I said, also saw today, it's just on the property. It sits further back, the sign does, and so forth. I think their intent is also to be more visible, correct? MR. Yes, you're correct. They did provide a study and analysis of the lighting from the sign, and it would not impact any residential homes. And we agree with that. So the only question I have for you then is in light of them, it's unfortunate they're not here, so we could hear from them or if they have a different way, we could have compromised or worked with them. They still have the ability though, if we affirm the Planning Commission's decision of denial, then the applicant would just have to start the process all over again, correct? I think we can also work with them if they want to stay within the dimensions of the existing sign and not extend beyond the 34 foot 8 inches. I think that's something we can work with them at staff level as long as none of the other square footages require a modification. I think we can do that. I guess your other, again, you can make a motion since they're not here. Another option is, I hate to say it, but you can always continue the item for 30 or 60 days to see if they want to come in, you want to listen to them. But again, that's totally up to you. May I, Mayor? Well, we're talking two feet. In my opinion, I mean, I'm disappointed they're not here, but it is before us. And in my opinion, two feet is not going to matter one way or another on the modified. So. To clarify, it's two feet difference for the signage area, but still going to 40 feet. So that's still about a five foot increase in the overall sign to the architectural embellishment on top. Got it. I would have no problem continuing it only because I don't want to speak for them. Why they're not here, I don't know, but so we don't have to start the process all over through the bureaucracy and give that one more opportunity. So I don't know if that motion would be to affirm the denial or just ask for a continuance for it. That way we don't waste everyone's time and have to start all over. Yeah, continuance for... Just ask for continuance then. At either 30 days or two a week, yeah. Yeah, I would do 30 days so we can ensure we get in touch with them and they can fit into their schedule. So I said June 17th. Is that the next 30 days from now? We'll get in touch with them and tell them the importance of being here. Otherwise, we'll get something from them saying that they're not interested, and we'll bring that back to you. Very well. That would be my motion then. Motion to continue for 30 days. Please vote. I think they're still furiously typing. All members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilwoman Larson and it carries. Item number 30 is a public hearing, City of Henderson fiscal year 2025-2026 budget, and the recommendation is to adopt. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. For the record, my name is David Weiser. I am the Assistant Director of Finance. Today's presentation is a recap. on the changes from the tentative budget that we presented to you on April 15th. I want you to be aware that we posted the tentative budget online for the residents to view on April 15th. Since that time, we've received no public comment. In addition to that, the Nevada Department of Taxation has also certified our tentative budget as well. So Just to kind of recollect our conversation that we had last month regarding the tentative budget, it was mentioned that the State Department of Taxation had been undergoing an accounting implementation which had impacted the numbers that we had received to date previously. during our budget development process. So we do want to give you an update to that because this communication that we received on May 15th, last Thursday evening, had a material change to our revenue estimates for consolidated tax. As you probably recall, consolidated tax is the city's general fund largest revenue stream at more than 40%, dating back to January of this fiscal of this calendar year, we had been notified by the Department of Taxation that they were undergoing a new accounting system. As part of this accounting system, the November distribution that we received as a city was nearly 50% less than our normal distribution year over year. The explanation for this at the time was this was due to the implementation of the new system and essentially represented a partial month. Since that time, the communication that we've been under the impression of was that we would receive a make-up payment for that distribution. That being said, on May 15th, we received a memorandum from the Department of Taxation that there is indeed no underpayment being made from the department to the jurisdictions, that in fact the declines that we are seeing in consolidated tax is actually due to economic downturn. So they cite here that the state of Nevada is down approximately 7%. So it's important to note that this is not a city of Henderson issue. This is impacting jurisdictions throughout the state. rely on consolidated tax. So what does this actually mean for our tentative budget? What changes resulted from this memorandum? Well, it's important to note that fiscal year to date, through the end of March, our consolidated tax receipts have been down 5.92%. The Department of Taxation Memorandum on May 15th had identified this as now due to economic factors, Previously, we had anticipated in our tentative budget, based on prior communications from the state, that we had outstanding collections owed to us as a city and that our revenue estimates for the current year would be flat. So given this updated information, we have updated our budget here today to reflect this change in consolidated tax, which means a $7.9 million decline in consolidated tax for fiscal year 2025. For fiscal year 2026, that represents an $8.1 million decline in consolidated tax as well from our tentative budget. Now, this is a total of $16 million over the course of two years. We have not made any changes on the expenditure side of our budget. This decline in revenues is being completely offset through our general fund reserves. You know, we often like to tout that we are fiscally sustainable here at the City of Henderson. We have very strong financial management policies here where we set aside reserves in our general fund, but also our rainy day fund. So we're not touching our rainy day fund in response to this. This is simply being taken from our general fund reserves, allowing us to maintain the existing levels of service that we had planned for fiscal year 2026. Just a quick recap, what exactly is consolidated tax and why this matters? Well, like I said, it's our largest revenue stream for the general fund. It's comprised of six components. There's the cigarette tax, liquor tax, government services tax, real property transfer tax, and then these last two here are really just fancy words of saying sales tax. There's the basic city county relief and supplemental city county relief tax. Those two sales taxes make up about 85% of the consolidated tax that we receive. So what the state of Nevada Department of Taxation is representing to us today is that they are seeing a decline in these two sales tax components of about 6% year-to-date for the City of Henderson. To recap and document the communication that we've received from the State of Nevada Department of Taxation, in January 30th, because of the consolidated tax distribution is generally one to two months behind, we received our November distribution from them with a 46% decline year-over-year. At that time, they provided us a memorandum stating that future distributions would be made to make up for these lost payments that were due as a result of the accounting system change. February 14th, we received our initial revenue estimates from the state, indicating that revenue growth for fiscal year 2025 was anticipated to become flat year over year. March 15th, final revenue estimates reaffirm this flat projection. And then on May, March, sorry, March 25th, Again, they provided us a memorandum identifying issues that they were having with outstanding collections, but yet reaffirmed our revenue projections as being flat for the fiscal year 2025. April 18th, we received an updated memorandum citing that there has been progress in these collections and there were still some future collections outstanding. So this news on May 15th was a material change to the communication that we had previously received as to our understanding of the city's consolidated tax situation. So given this information, now that they are saying that this revenue decline is actually due to economic downturn, we have updated our projections based on this information because it is the best available information that we have to rely on. This here is a chart of our consolidated tax projections in the budget for fiscal year 2026. As you can see, for 2025, we're anticipating now a 4.7% downturn. And this is based on the fact that we're down 6% year to date through March. That being said, when you take out the month of November, which had that 46% decline, Effectively, the average decline that we've seen is only 1%. So we're extrapolating the remaining three months of the year of only a 1% decline, indicating a 4.7% decline for the entire year. Now, that creates a new baseline for us when you plan for the upcoming fiscal year's budget, because now we're starting at a much lower starting point, right? So for fiscal year 2026, we're anticipating a 1.6% increase in growth, and that growth rate is consistent and aligns with the economic form, as well as previous communications that we received from the Department of Taxation as well. But what that means is that we are now only anticipating $166.6 million in consolidated tax revenues for fiscal 2026, and that's about $8 million short in our previously submitted tentative budget. As far as the tentative budget NICAP. Some of the things that we talked about last month was the efforts that the city has made to ensure that we were providing you a fiscally sustainable budget. The efforts that we identified were these efficiencies that we worked with city leadership, our various department directors on ensuring that we were eliminating non-mandatory travel and training, conducting a strategic review of our general fund positions, reviewing our purchase orders as well as looking at our underutilized fleets. So these are processes that are part of our ongoing procedures here at the City of Henderson when we build the budget, and this is something that we will continue to look at and continue to evaluate given these declines in revenues that we are now anticipating. That being said, this fiscal year's budget highlights largely remain the same as the tentative budget. We are not Removing any expenditures at this point, like I said, we received this memorandum on May 15th. Our deadline to submit the budget to the Department of Taxation is June 1st. So as new information comes in, we can adapt our budget accordingly. those changing circumstances if revenues come in higher but as of now we are utilizing our general fund reserves to offset this decline in revenue like i said we're not touching our rainy day fund at this point we're continuing funding for council priorities such as the henderson homeless response team the cadet program fire station 84 and we're doing this with one of the lowest employee to citizen ratios in the region at 6.7 employees per 1,000 residents, and one of the lowest property taxes at $0.77 per $100 of assessed valuation. So we're effectively doing more with less. But at this time, we're maintaining our expenditures. But keep in mind that this tentative budget had no new programs, no new staffing included as part of that budget development. as far as what actions that we are continuing to take. We'll continue to monitor the situation as far as ongoing revenues come in to see if they are, we are realizing the anticipated declines that are being anticipated for the rest of the year, but also for the upcoming fiscal year as well. And we're taking a cautious approach to all new spending by looking at those financial efficiencies that we talked about as part of the tentative budget build. We are also including that. That is part of our standard operating procedures here at the City of Henderson and something that we will continue to evaluate as we receive these cash consolidated tax collections. And then lastly, just continuing to effectively prioritize our core services in relation to these type of financial efficiencies and cost efficiencies as we come about them. So with that, I'd be happy to address any questions or concerns relating to the consolidated tax changes. This item is a public hearing that I'll now open. Is there anybody wishing to come forward and make a statement on this item? There is no one in the comment queue for this item. I'll close the public hearing. Verbally, after the surprise letter on Thursday, we had some indication that they might have sent the memo out a little prematurely, that might not be actually what the case is. We're obligated to use their latest information. But I also know from speaking to heads of various cities across the state, since since then, that some of them are fairly, well, actually all of them are certain that the numbers the city, the state has given them are incorrect. In some cases, they know they're incorrect because they have a little bit of different formula for how they get parts of their revenue. And so I would anticipate that there's going to be some jockeying of monies coming forward, but we are obligated to use this what they have given us, this amount. And I appreciate the fact that you are approaching it very cautiously and being very conservative with the budget. We've had to make very strategic decisions on cuts to capital improvement projects, push some of them off until later, not failing positions that maybe have been open for some time. And so I appreciate the thought process that went into that. And I'm hoping that the state straightens things out a little bit and we have some more consistent information coming in in the near future so that we can actually have a better idea of really what's happening at the state level with the revenues. Are there any questions or comments from? I also wanted to thank you because I know this has been extremely challenging, but thank you also for you being cautious in protecting the city. Thank you very much, you and your team. Thank you. I was just going to echo that we have an incredible finance team, and I just want to tell you it's just great to work with you, and I know that we're in good hands. Thank you so much, and to Maria and your whole team. Thank you. The money that you're having to pull out, pulling from our reserves, what does that do to our reserve level and percentages and where we should be as a city? Yeah, so I'm happy to report that Like I said, we're offsetting this decline in revenues with our general fund reserves, but our general fund balance projected for fiscal year 2026 is still at that 8.3% mark, and that is our policy minimum. And like I said, it doesn't touch our rainy day fund, which is an additional 8.3% of general fund revenues as well. So we're still reserved for any potential worsening of an economic downturn. Okay, David. So let's back up just a bit here, make sure I understand this. I'll pare it back what I think I heard. In my mind, there's two different issues here. We're talking about the budget for fiscal year 2026, correct? Correct. What's directly affecting that budget is the revenues coming in from basically the sea tax that obviously there's been a mistake. You don't lose 50% in one month of your sea tax. But we have to go with what? is given to us and the justification from the state. So that has a dramatic effect on the budget that we are approving, the 26, fiscal year 26 budget. I understand that. Let me ask a question. This is all from the Department of Taxation. In formulating our tentative budget and now our final budget, we used projections from which department of the state gave us the projections that this is probably what revenues are going to be. It's the Department of Taxation. Same department. Yes, same department. Okay, so what kind of assurance do we have that the fiscal year 26 budget, based on the revenues that that department projected, is anywhere close? I mean, they've shown us that there's a problem, and I'm just trying to I'm not trying to call them out. It's not only a problem for our fiscal year 25 and making up the difference, it can carry on and on and on because of their projections given for fiscal year 26. And I guess I'm asking you what kind of confidence do you have in the numbers that they gave us three or four months ago to base our 26 budget on? Yeah, that's a good question and a good point. So February 15th, they said revenues for the current year was going to be flat. Again, they reaffirmed that projection multiple times to us. And then last Thursday evening, now it is due to economic downturn. So as far as what kind of confidence we have, I would say you know, at the end of the day, if revenues are coming in higher than anticipated based on this budget, we have the ability to augment those revenues to a higher level. So worst case scenario, revenues are better than anticipated and we don't have to utilize our general fund reserves. So I think there's low risk in taking a very cautious approach here and relying on these very negative numbers from the Department of Taxation at this point? The issue being is that we just are out of time. We have to provide them with a 26 budget in two weeks. So I just, I'm not, I guess, very confident. But hopefully that lack of confidence hopefully works in our favor that maybe they start finding some of the money that, you know, what you just said. Anyway, I appreciate what you and your team have done. This is kind of a slap in the face, a gut punch that we get this at the 11th and a half hour. So thank you for being light on your feet and bringing things together for us. It just, I think, reinforces the fact that the city is very well run, specifically and most importantly financially. So thanks. Thank you. I have a motion to adopt the tentative budget, or the final budget. Council members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilwoman Larson, and it carries. The next section of your agenda is bills referred from committee for adoption as ordinance. Item number 31, bill number 3836, amending Henderson Municipal Code, Chapter 15.02, Development Services Schedule of Fees, and the recommendation is to adopt as ordinance number 4077. We have a motion. Move. Please vote. Council members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilman Seabock, and it carries. The next section of your agenda is new business, item number 32, appointments by Mayor Michelle Romero to the Redevelopment Agency Advisory Commission. The recommendation is to appoint Mark McGinty and Kobe Sherlock to the Redevelopment Agency Advisory Commission. Thank you, and I want to recognize that Kobe is here in the audience today. Thank you for your willingness to serve. I appreciate it very much, and I think your expertise will go a long way to helping our Redevelopment Agency Advisory Commission do their job. So thank you for being willing to serve. I appreciate it. With that, I'll make the motion to approve. Please vote. Council members voted in favor of the motion made by Mayor Michelle Romero, and it carries. Item number 33 is a resolution concerning the financing of flood control projects for the City of Henderson, declaring the intent to request the state revolving fund to purchase the city's flood control revenue bonds, and the recommendation is to adopt. Hello, this is a resolution to declare our city's intent to request the state revolving funds to purchase revenue bonds issued by the city in the maximum principal amount of $17 million to finance drainage and flood control projects as defined by NRS 268. This resolution authorizes the city to file a loan application with the State of Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and negotiate the terms of the loan agreement. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions or comments? We have a motion. Please vote. All council members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilwoman Cox. And it carries. Item number 34 is a resolution setting forth findings and determinations required by the Clark County Crime Prevention Act of 2016. And the recommendation is to adopt. This resolution is to adopt the findings regarding the revenue generated by the Clark County Crime Prevention Act of 2016. The act increased the sales and use tax for the purposes of employing and equipping additional police officers for the police department, including the Henderson Police Department. As part of the legislation, the city must report annually that the funding was used for its intended purposes, which includes the employment and equipment of additional officers, and does not supplant the city's general fund to support the police department. The city is in compliance with all requirements of the act. Thank you. May I have a motion? Please vote. All members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilwoman Larson, and it carries. Item number 35 is a resolution setting forth findings and determinations required by the Clark County Sales and Use Tax Act of 2005. The recommendation is to adopt. The Clark County Sales and Use Tax Act of 2005 increases the sales and use tax for the purposes of employing and equipping additional police officers for police departments within the county, including the Henderson Police Department. As part of this legislation, the city must report annually that the funding was used for its intended purposes, which includes the employment and equipment for additional police officers and does not supplant the city's general fund for support of the police department. The city is in compliance with all requirements of the act. Thank you. Thank you. May I have a motion? Please vote. All council members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilwoman Cox, and it carries. Item number 36 is a bid protest, Townsite Utility Replacement Phase 5, Meninchino Construction, LLC, and the recommendation is to deny. Mayor and Council, this is a bid protest. It is the recommendation of staff from both Utility Services Department and the City Attorney's Office that you deny this bid protest. I'm going to turn the time over to Assistant City Attorney Wade Gotchner. who's gonna give you a presentation on the reasons why that is our recommendation. And then representatives from Mancino Construction will have an opportunity to make a presentation to you as well, and then we're happy to answer any questions. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Again, for the record, my name is Wade Gochner. I'm an Assistant City Attorney here at the City of Henderson, and I'm here tonight to talk to you about the bid protest on the Townsite Utility Replacement Phase 5 Project. The Townsite Utility Replacement Phase 5 project is an ongoing project to replace utility facilities in the Townsite area. I presented a map here so you can get a general vicinity of where this particular project will be located. And so this is an ongoing project that utilities has been ongoing and again it's Phase 5. I believe we also have Phase 4 going right now. So as part of the project, the invitations for bid for this project were issued on February 5, 2025 through the NGEN system, which the city uses to provide for electronic bidding for its bid contractors. That invitation for bid set a bid opening of March 6, 2025. During the period that the bidders were allowed to look at the invitation for bid, the city issued addendum number one, adding a geotechnical Consultants report as part of the bid specifications and that was issued on February 12th 2025 and here on the right side of the slide You can see that notification that comes out from MGM and I've highlighted the date that it was issued again February 12th 2025 Also during the bid per the bid period Addendum two was issued on February 27, 2025, and that addendum added additional changes to the specifications that were resulting from questions that we had received during the bid process from the bidders. So when they made questions, we made some technical changes to the bid specs, and we released those out for all bidders to have at the bid. The bids were open on March 6, 2025. we received six bids ranging from $0 to slightly more than $11.8 million as shown on the right side of this slide. The low bid of $0 was submitted by GoPotties and didn't seem to be an actual bid. It seemed more of a marketing materials and price lists and it was clearly non-responsive and staff found as so. The next two bidders in order were Mendicino Construction and America United Construction and you can see those on the listing. In considering those bid documents, staff went through all the documents, and I want to reiterate that in that review, staff found no errors or issues with the bid that was submitted by America United Construction. However, when staff was reviewing the bid documents issued by Menachino, staff noticed that there was two issues with the bid. The first was that Menachino failed to list a subcontractor on the required $250,000 subcontractor listing as well as the 1% subcontractor listing. Additionally, Menachino had failed to acknowledge addendum number one that had been issued prior to bid opening. With that background, I'd like to take a step back and Excuse me. On April 2nd, I forgot to add this, I apologize. On April 2nd, after finding these problems, city staff issued a notice of intent to award stating the problems with Minichino's bid, finding that Minichino's bid was non-responsive, and recommending an award to America United contractors. So with that, I'd like to step back and kind of walk the council back through the legal requirements for public works project bidding. NRS 338.141, subsection 1, subsection B is applicable here. That section requires that each bid must include, that's the words of the statute, the name of each subcontractor who will be paid more than 5% at the time of the bid. For Menachino's bid, that amount would have been $460,250. NRS 338.141 also requires additional listing. The statute requires that within two hours of bid opening, and it can be at bid or within two hours, that bidders must submit, and again, this is key, the name of each subcontractor who will be paid in excess of $250,000, and the name of each subcontractor who will be paid more than 1%. The statute does not have an exception for previously listed contractors. Additionally, NRS 338.147 provides that when you go out to a bid, the local government is required to award that bid to the best bid. And the best bid is defined as the lowest bid by a contractor who has been found to be both responsive and responsible. So with that, I'd like to turn back to Mendicino's bid. What you see on this slide is Mendicino's 5% list. This is the list for subcontractors who will be paid in excess of 5%. And again, based upon Mendicino's bid, that amount was $460,000 $460,250. As you can see, there's one subcontractor listed on this list. And that's Wholesome. No other subcontractors are listed, but we know that Wholesome will be paid in excess of $460,000. This slide provides you with the statute as well as the $250,000 list from Minichino's bid. see on this portion any subcontractor who's paid in excess of 250 000 should be listed on this list again as the statute states right there and it's highlighted which requires the naming of each subcontractor who will be paid in excess of 250 000 and we know that wholesome was going to be paid in excess of 460 000 yet wholesome is not listed on this list under the way the city reads these documents and the way we have acted in previous bids This is not compliant with city documents. I would also point out the instructions to the bidders. That's in bold and underlined. This form must be complete for all subcontractors exceeding $250,000 regardless if the firms are included on the 5% and 1% listings. As council may recall from previous this year, this was the exact same reason that this council rejected excuse me staff rejected the bid of Fisher sand and gravel on the Bruce Woodbury beltway widening project and for that same reason that this council denied the bid protest by Fisher sand and gravel. Next I'm showing you what is the 1% listing portion of Menachino's bid documents. Again here you can see the I've blown up subsection three with the instructions. It says that the contractor shall name each first-tier subcontractor who will provide labor or a portion that's in excess of 1% of the bid. Again, we know Wholesome was gonna be paid in excess of $460,000, yet there's one subcontractor on this particular list, and that subcontractor is Unicon, not Wholesome. In addition to those listing issues, Menachino's bid suffered from a second fatal issue, and that was the failure to acknowledge all addenda that had been issued prior to bid opening. The city bid specifications require each bidder to acknowledge all addenda issued for the bid. As you can see, Menachino only acknowledged addendum number two. As I showed you earlier, addenda one was issued on February 12, 2025, which is approximately three weeks before the bid opening. And both Addenda 1 and 2 were acknowledged by America United in their bid, so we know that they were both issued before bid opening. I also want to point out the instructions that you see at the bottom here on what's required. Failure to acknowledge the receipt of all addenda will render the bid non-responsive. That's exactly what staff found. So after review of the bids, staff determined that Menachino's bid was non-responsive. Again, for two reasons. Failure to submit listings with subcontractors to exceed $250,000 and 1%, as well as failure to acknowledge addendum number one. Therefore, America United was found to be the lowest responsive and responsibly bitter, and therefore the best bid. And with that, staff recommends a word to America United. and request that you deny this bid protest. I also want to point out that this is consistent with staff's recommendations in other cases. For example, we have the Center Street Storm Drain Project. On that project, the low bidder did not submit a 1% list, and staff found them non-responsive. The second low bidder on that project did not submit a subcontractor on the 250,000 list, even though They were on other lists. Again, just like we have here, non-responsive. Even in that case, the third low bidder failed to list somebody on the 1% list. And again, staff determined them to be non-responsive. Next, we have Maryland Parkway and St. Rose, December of 2023. In this one, the low bidder did not include a sub on the 1% list who was named on the 5% list. We found them non-responsive. It's the same situation we have here. Somebody's on the five, not on the one. Non-responsive. In that case, the low bidder filed a protest, which was unanimously rejected by this council. And finally, as I alluded to earlier, just recently, back in March, we had the Bruce Woodbury Beltway Widening Project. Fisher Sand and Gravel was the low bidder, but failed to include a subcontractor who would be paid in excess of $250,000. even though that subcontractor was listed on their 5% list and their 1% list. Staff deemed that bid non-responsive. Fisher protested and counsel rejected that protest. Fisher then brought suit in the 8th Judicial District Court seeking to overturn this counsel's decision. And just last month, the District Court issued a findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the city upholding our determination. And I would also point out that Fisher was actually more compliant than Mendicino is in this bid. There's a secondary issue to this bid protest. And I would request an alternative and additional finding from this council regarding this particular issue. And that is whether the bid protest is valid in the first instance. Out of an abundance of caution, we have brought this matter before you as a bid protest so that you can consider the merits of the bid protest itself. But in addition, I think you need to consider whether this protest is valid. So as I pointed out previously, the notice of intent to award was issued on April 2nd, 2025. Pursuant to Nevada law, as well as the bid specifications, any bidder has five business days to submit their bid protest. NRS 338.142 allows the city to require the posting of a bond at the time a bid protest is made. Bid specification 102.16 requires that the notice of protest must include an original executed surety bond. Going back, at the time the bid protest was submitted, it was submitted via email and included an email a reported bond for this project. However, the original bond, as required by the bid specifications, was not received until April 22nd, 2025. I know it's very difficult to see this on this slide. That's why I've marked it out with the red box. It's faint. This is the time and date stamp that was used by staff when they received the original document, again, on April 22nd, which is approximately 13 days after the bid protest period ended. So with that, I would request that this council make two determinations. First, I would request that you reject the bid protest filed by Minichino Construction for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Recommendation of Award. Again, those are failure to supply a subcontractor who will provide work in excess of $250,000 or in excess of 1%, as well as failing to acknowledge all addenda in the bid And secondarily, I'd ask you to make a finding that the bid protest was not filed in a valid format for failure to provide the original bond as required by the bid specifications at the time of submission. And with that, I'd say thank you, and I will stand for any questions. Thank you. Let's hear from the appellant first, and then we'll... Good evening, everyone. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak. I'm here on behalf of Mendicino Construction. My name is Vincent Aiello. And we've heard from Council, from the City Attorney's Office, that the bid wasn't submitted correctly, that the information that needed to be provided in order to have the bid recognized should have been done in a hyper-structured format, requiring duplicative designations of subcontractors when the statute itself has no requirement for that. And that's really important to take a look at. because it's going to cost the city and the taxpayers here an additional $700,000 by selecting a more expensive contractor to do the work. It's also important to understand that this particular contractor is already doing work for the city. They're competent, they're capable, and they're ready and able to perform underneath of the bid terms and conditions. What happened here is that when you read the instructions to fill out the actual bid application, On page 11, Minichino was required to list all subcontractors that would be paid 5%, 5% or more of the total bid. And they did that. You can read through the documentation that Mr. Gockner had put up on the screen for you, and you can see that they properly list out that contractor. Then it goes on to say that on page 14, they're required to list all subcontractors who would be paid more than 1%. And they did that. They satisfied that requirement. There is nothing on those forms. or in the instructions that says it needs to be listed duplicatively, multiple times. It doesn't say that. Strangely enough, even though we all read the statute together when Mr. Gochner was up here, there is nothing in the statute that says it has to be listed twice, three times. Those are not requirements of the law. The law under NRS 338.141 is designed to prevent bid shopping gain an unfair competitive advantage at the expense of the other contractors. We know that didn't happen here because all of the contractors that are relevant to the construction project are properly listed out on the forms. They may not be listed out exactly in the way the city prefers. I don't know if everyone was listening to that. What's happened in the past is the city has a preference. It's not what the law says. The legislative history under 338.141 and the case law of Clark Pacific versus Crump Construction, a 1996 case, specifically said that that there is no obligation to duplicatively list out multiple subcontractors that have already been listed. We've heard a threshold issue of that you can't even entertain this bid protest because a bond wasn't properly turned in within the five-day period. I can understand that, but my client specifically contacted the purchasing agents and Luke Fritz, an avian carpenter, immediately responded back to him and said, you can submit your bond to us by email. You can submit your bid protest to us by email, instructing and informing my client that he was allowed to present this information to them in that manner. He followed that instruction. And within that instruction, he included our objection letter, our protest letter, our rationale for why the city is going to lose money by making a decision to go with a more expensive bid because of hyper-technical processes that don't necessarily prevent exactly what the statute was intended to prevent. And what it was intended to prevent again is bid shopping, bid rigging, an unfair competitive advantage which wasn't taking place here in this situation. We also heard commentary that all of the addenda were not acknowledged. Well, there's a problem with that. City Attorney's Office may not be aware, but at the day the bid was let out so that folks could bid on that bid, addendum number one was not listed as addendum number one. There are screenshots that specifically do not include that as an addendum. Notwithstanding that, underneath of the NGEM system, all bidders have an obligation to click to select that they've acknowledged all the exhibits and the addenda. And our client did that. They specifically did that when they submitted it. Again, the acknowledgement of the addenda for addenda number two is listed in the screenshot. But addenda number one was a supplement. It wasn't listed as an express addendum that had to be agreed to. When you look at the evidence that Mr. Gochner had put up there, there's no listing of addendum one or addendum two. It just lists addendum two. And again, our client accepted that when they clicked through on the NGIN system. The geotechnical report, critical obviously, but you can't acknowledge something that doesn't exist at the time of the bidding if it isn't listed as an addendum. It's listed as a planned supplement. So in that context, our client has complied in all respects, notwithstanding opposing counsel's position that they have not. And the case law in the state of Nevada, the way the legislative history works and how this process unfolded accurately and fairly shows that both contractors that are relevant to this job, whether at the $50,000 level or the 5% level, the 1% level or the 5% level, are properly listed. and clearly delineated. Relisting them again is duplicative. It isn't necessary under the statute. It's not necessary under the law. With that being said, if you have any questions of me or you care to hear anything else further, I'm happy to expand on that. Wade, could you come back up, please? Oh, excuse me. We may have a representative from America United who also has an interest in this item, I assume. MR. You got it. My name is Bradley Taylor, and I represent American United here. I do not have prepared comments, but I just wanted to make a few notes here. What we just heard from Mendocino's counsel is an argument of policy, not how Mendocino actually satisfied the mandatory requirements of NRS 338. Another point I would like to make is perhaps more important and that is what are the contract documents under Mendocino bid the Geo technical report for an earthwork project is not part of the contract documents because they don't acknowledge addendum number one whereas American United acknowledged number one obviously it was available to them to mark on the engine system and under the American United bid and subsequent contract that is part of the contract documents which could be down the road very important for the city or for the contractor or whomever if something happens so I just wanted to point that out the last item is In American United's opinion, Mendocino doesn't satisfy the bid qualification, the Public Works bid amount listing. Their bid limit on the day of the bid was $5 million. This contract is double that. That's something else that we'd like the Council to note. That's our opinion. Thank you very much for your time. Councillor Schell, do you have questions for me? I do. Is there any way you can put the statute up, please? And then I did have some questions for the attorney. Could Would you like the fall or would you like this one is let me get you the yeah, I'd like the actual statute of thank you Okay, so are you suggesting? that? that NRS 338 that the interpretation of the statute is that is being misinterpreted by the council on the city short answer yes and the reason is Sorry. Go ahead. No. Okay. Short answer, yes. The reason that I maintain that position is because you're adding requirements which do not exist in the statute. Statutes typically aren't as helpful as we want them to be as attorneys for interpretation purposes, and sometimes they can be ambiguous. And my position is that this particular statute, in the context of bidding instructions, would be ambiguous. Sometimes you would see that followed up with an NAC code, which might clarify the particular statute. We don't have that here at issue. We just have this statute. The statute doesn't say you must continuously list for the purposes of disclosure to prevent bid shopping, bid rigging, and illegal or improper activities in that statute. So you're also suggesting that it is not in harmony with the intent of the law. No, it is not in harmony. Our position is not in harmony. No. Okay. Also, it's not fiscally the best policy if you've listed out the subs and you're going to more money for a project that you could be saving money on because you have all the subs disclosed, insurance is there, bonding is there, and there's no requirement here if we look at it. I have to look at it down here, so I don't know if you can hear me, but we don't see the words that it must be listed out multiple times in multiple sections. In the $50,000 requirement or the $250,000 requirement, it doesn't say that. It says that you must list them out, and that's what Minichino did, for their larger subcontractor, Holsom, and then for their smaller subcontractor, Unicon, they listed that subcontractor out. That was the requirement. I hope that helps. Okay. Well, I agree with the duplicity being ridiculous. So, Wade, where then are you, can you respond to that, please? Absolutely, Councilwoman. Again, for the record, Wade Gochner, Assistant City Attorney. I am going to disagree with my colleague, as we often do, but the language is clear. The first canon of judicial construction of statutory language is read the clear language. And the language here is very clear. It says that you must include each name of a contractor who will be paid more than 5% of the work. Separate section. Now completely different. New listing. It says you must provide a list that includes the name of each subcontractor who will be paid in excess of $250,000. Those words in the statute have to be given meaning. That's, again, another canon of statutory construction. Each subcontractor has meaning, and it means each. It doesn't mean each that you haven't already provided. It doesn't mean each that might be somewhere else. It means each. It's a simple requirement that contractors do on many many of our bids all the time every week 52 weeks a year councilwoman We have this happen every time and we have required this on all of our bids for years for the entire time that certainly I have been at the city which has been over eight years now and so this is what we've always required and again as I showed you before this is how we have found in prior matters on this very same issue so I agree. I've just never had an attorney here challenge it on the basis that I always thought should have been. And that's nothing against our wonderful, you know, and so I'm not going to get, like, I admire and respect you. But I will say that I interpret it differently and have always interpreted it differently. However, I I think it's important to look at that, that it has to be in harmony with the intent of the law. And it's more important, I think, that the verbiage, because we are saying it says the name of each first tier subcontractor, that's very clear, the name of each first tier. It doesn't then say you have to put it I'm not trying to open up a can of worms, but I can't sit here and not say that I really interpret it differently. So help me, because I do, interpret it in the way that Vincent, sorry, has interpreted it. How do we get, I understand it's been done a certain way, and I don't want to change that certain way, but I'm But I'm reading the law differently as well. So help me understand how it shows that they need to list it over and over and over again. Even though there's a bold, the one thing though, however, in our requirements is that there is a bold underlined statement requiring it from the city of Henderson. The challenge is that the NRS doesn't back our policy. Respectfully, I disagree with your interpretation. Please correct me. I'm wanting you to if you can. Let's start at NRS 338.141, subsection B. This is the statutory section that's applicable. And again, it says the name of each first-year subcontractor who will be paid an amount in excess of 5% of the contractor's total bid. Okay, that's one list. Now we start a brand new separate requirement based on the language of the statute. Within two hours after completion of the opening of the bids, the contractors who submitted the three lowest bids must submit a list containing the name of each first tier subcontractor, the name of each who will provide labor or a portion of the work on the public work to the prime contractor for which they will be paid in excess of $250,000. And again, period. No or, no and, period. Separate requirements, subsection 2. The name of each subcontractor who will be paid in excess of 1%. And again, I would remind Councilwoman and the Council that this is the exact argument that was made by Fisher Sand and Gravel before the 8th Judicial District Court, and the 8th Judicial District Court found in favor of the city. So I feel pretty comfortable that our interpretation is fairly valid. So... Thank you. I appreciate that. Can I make a quick statement also? At the last bid protest meeting that you were absent for, I think you were on vacation, or I'm not sure, there were attorneys here debating the same thing. Nonetheless, as you mentioned, the judicial court just decided on the very exact same thing. So thank you for clarifying that. Actually, I think it was present. But anyway, thank you. I do appreciate it, Wade, whether I was or I wasn't. I appreciate the clarification. Thank you so much. Stay back up there. Just for clarification, did the other bidder acknowledge addendum number one? Yeah. That's all right. Any other questions? I just got a couple. Did we verify, I understood your opposing argument, that someone told him verbally they could send in that, I'm sorry, go ahead. I'm asking about the bond that was supposed to be the original. If I understood it, it sounded like you said that someone from your company spoke to someone on the phone and you said it was okay? Or did I misunderstand that? No, Councilman. It was an actual email to my client instructing client to submit the bid protest and the bid bond bid protest bond by email and that was from Luke Fritz which I have a copy of and that was the reason it was submitted that way because he expressly asked how would you like me to submit this to you and Luke said you're welcome to send it submitted to me or to Amy Carpenter and I've got that here I only made one copy but if you you can put it on the side and they can take a camera picture yeah I'll try to do that I don't know how that works. And then while they zoom in on that, they'll zoom in on that. And while they do, the other question I have for you, sir, is has your company submitted a bid to the city of Henderson before? It was my client. They have submitted a bid to the city of Henderson. They're currently doing work for the city of Henderson. Right, so has this happened to them before? I can't speak to that issue. I'm not familiar with the past bidding practices. Okay, and then also, what's your argument that the district court just in favor of the process in which you're making your argument on? Absolutely. So in my opinion, it's very difficult, and my argument would be it's very difficult to extrapolate out from a past case to say, you know, that case has the exact same set of facts. It's easiest for us to say that case controls all the law of the land. That's a district court decision, not a Nevada Supreme Court decision. We don't know yet if this is a recent report. case that's come out, I don't know when it came out, but maybe there's still an appeal period. So there's a possibility that that may go up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court might say, listen, we have an established case from 1996. We have controlling case law from, or persuasive case law from California that says, you know, these hyper-technical rules don't necessarily prevent illegal activities in bidding, and that's really the ultimate concern. Okay, thank you. And thanks for providing that. Can I? Can you please leave that? So Wade, the first sentence of, well I guess it's the second sentence says, please follow the protest procedures instructions in the bid specifications. Do the bid specifications instruct that the law needs to be followed, that a Original document needs to be submitted to the city Excuse me mayor. I'd be more than happy to bring that back up But yes the bid specifications and I'm trying to remember the exact I think it's 102.16 requires that an original The notice of protest must include an original executed surety bond by a surety allowed to do business in the state of Nevada and that must accompany your bid protests we must be given an original for the bed specifications within the timeframe of the bid protest allowance? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? But it also says with all the required documentation will suffice. And so I'm just trying to point it all out fairly is all. Well, again, with all the required documentation, suffice so again but an email mayor so that's all I'm saying is that it suggests that they can receive it but I think there's more to this so I'm good with saying look it's whether I was here at a prior meeting or not here at a prior meeting it doesn't matter it matters that I do understand where the attorney's coming from and I do have a legal background so i'm going to say that i can understand that i do however there's a lot wrong with this bid and and there's a lot of questions and this council has been clear on what they expect in bids also to councilman c box statement i agree i mean his question is poignant in that you know if you're they're currently doing work for the city clearly gone through the bid process before and so you have me on understanding that you know it's not in harmony with the statute and and that you know the statute can be interpreted a different way but when it comes down to they've already are doing work they've clearly gone through the process correctly and and then with the with the order from the court, even though it hasn't gone through the entire judicial process, the court has spoken. So it just puts me in a position that although I can see your point, I'm not able to support it. So I'll make a motion, unless there's any other comment, Mayor. My motion would be to deny the bid protest to include the updated issue with the bond that that was also a violation, if that's the accurate terminology. So that's what my motion will contain. Correct, the alternate finding. Please vote. All council members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilman Seabach and it carries. Item number 37 is an award construction contract, town site utility replacement, phase 5, and award that to America United Construction, Inc. And the recommendation is to award to America United Construction. Please vote. All members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilman Stewart, and it carries. The next part of the agenda is Mayor and Council comments. Are there any comments from the Council? I'll close the Mayor and Council comments. Actually, I'm going to reopen it. I was just going to acknowledge we received a really great letter last week from an individual from the community who was having the worst day of their life and had to call 911. We had just happened to open our newest fire station, Station 92, and they responded to this emergency. And the person who was experiencing this situation wrote a letter acknowledging how wonderfully well she was treated during this time. It was a very scary situation. She didn't know what was happening. And I don't know if anybody from fire, yes, we have fire people here. wonderful appraising letter about how she was treated, the kindness with which she was shown, the compassion and the quick response that she was given was so appreciated. And I just wanted to acknowledge the fact that we know it happens all the time, but we did get a letter from somebody specifically calling out Station 92 and the wonderful response they got. So thank you for that. With that, I will set the next City Council regular meeting for June 3rd, 2025. And now is the time for our final public comment. Remember, if you make a public comment, we cannot respond to the public comment. Please come to the podium, speak directly into the mic, and state your name and zip code, and you will have three minutes to speak. We have four people in the public comment. Cue. The first one is Melissa Tresotti. Good evening, Mayor, council members and staff. I appreciate your time. I'm going to be quite honest that, forgive me, please, I'm going to be reading from the notes in my phone right now because I have been. That's okay, but state your name and zip code for the record. I'm sorry, Melissa Tresotti, 89002. So I've been speaking in length and depth on this topic over the last few days. I would like to first start by thanking Assistant City Manager Angela Summers for all of her communications with me. While the announcement of the informational public meeting yesterday was not properly advertised at all, I do appreciate being able to speak yesterday and receive some of the insight that I did receive from members of Community Development and Services Department. In the past years and current times, I have not necessarily opposed, been opposed to our Henderson Animal Care and Control coming out from under HPD. Do mainly... to our shelter being very low on the priority list under HPD, since their core focus is on public safety and also the challenges with funding allocation for our shelter. However, we, and I speak for myself and many others in the community, regardless of their presence or not here, we do continue to seek transparency. Transparency is very much lacking with our city leadership. It does seem to be a pattern. It is a concerning pattern. So transparency is key. More factual information provided to us is critical. Sorry, my mind is all over the place. For myself personally and other community members, Again, we need to have more insight as to why this transition is going to be beneficial and favorable for our shelter and animal control and in the best interest of our community pets and also in support of our shelter and animal control staff. While our city states that this decision was made, quote, thoughtfully and with the goal of improving service and coordination and not diminishing the importance of animal welfare, And this abrupt announcement was shared to give staff ample time to plan for the transition. In my view and the view of many others, unfortunately, the lack of transparency and inclusion with animal control prior to the announcement being made and animal control and HPD finding out about this transition just minutes before the announcement made did factually create fear, speculation, and uncertain ground. That was felt both within and with community members. I can't speak to whether or not that was intentional or the goal. I'd like to think not. However, those decisions did create a break in trust and faith in our city leadership. Wrap it up really quick. I have a lot more to say. There are a lot more questions that we do have. There's a lot more clarification needed. But I do appreciate your time. I do appreciate the time that has been allocated to me over the last days with some of our city leadership. Thank you. Thank you. The next person is Herman Godoy. Good afternoon. Councilman, Councilwoman, all directors and staff of Henderson City. I have the opportunity to express myself thanks to the democratic system that we have in United States. Also to this beautiful Henderson City. I have met the work team of Park and Recreation Center thanks to engineering, consulman, and also Consulwoman, Carrie Cots. I went to Black Mountain and Silver Spring Recreation Center at the beginning of this year, and I had the honor to meet Angela Sommer. I saw that environment and that energy that attracted me very much. I participated in each activity giving the best of me as a scientist. I know your biography very well. You don't know me. I want to tell you a little bit with humble presentation. First, I am a child of God since I am very young. Thanks to a great congregation that have great principles and great foundation. Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saint. Thanks to my primary education and secondary education and God lessons, I won a scholarship. It's called full-ride scholarship. I was very poor, but God gave me that gift. Five years of special payment to Ohio University. I had to study 365 days from a baby to an adult. In one year, I have to learn reading, writing, rationalization and presentation. I became from a baby to an adult in one year. I kept studying 365 days. It was very difficult to learn a new language. But after that, I continue with persistence. Thanks to my character, I continue and I finish and I kept the full-ride scholarship for four years and I finish at Ohio University in record time. Nowadays, I am in this wonderful city. Henderson City is a blue zone, wonders me. please wrap up your comments. So I just want to request, I'm going to be short. As a geologist and scientist, I am searching for a job. And I brought all my qualification, certification, and knowledge to serve the community. I would like to handle to you, Mayor, or to anybody in this audience, would you please give me the chance to serve this beautiful community. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Gina Griesen. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. For the record, Gina Griesen, Nevada Voters for Animals. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I, too, am here to discuss the move of animal care and control out from under the police department. On or about May 9th, I received an urgent concerning message that an email had gone out and the staff had just found out about it minutes before it happened. This is a pretty big change. Obviously, it caused a lot of concern. It caused a lot of uncertainty. A lot of what was already said earlier, I echo those exact concerns. I immediately reached out to those who it might affect and did confirm that it was true. And then my next phone calls were to the mayor and the council. I didn't get any response. return phone calls back, except I did get a text message from Councilman Seabock, who did say that he respected the staff and the volunteers and the care of the animals. But I then posed another question about then why didn't they talk to them, and I didn't get a response back. I also sent a message to Councilman Cox, and she replied that she was not told about it and that she was not in favor of it. understand there's been some impromptu press conferences and some, you know, I guess efforts to do a little damage control on this issue. But my concern is, is that one of the things that I heard in the news stories was that we want to be more in line with Clark County. Why? We loved Henderson. We loved that animal care and control was well run and that it was under the police department. To move it out, I have deep concerns with all of these horrific cruelty cases that have been coming that it won't be taken as seriously, not under the police department. But even if it was a good idea, even if this was something that is the best idea ever, why was it done in secret? Why was it done without transparency, without collaboration with your team, with your staff, with the people that it will affect? And why weren't we maybe invited in and told what a great idea this would be and had these discussions before We had to have them in the media and then here today at this council meeting. The other concern I have is the money. I'm told that nothing's going to change. So if nothing's going to change, then why are you changing it? And all the money in the budget is going to transfer over. Okay, but now I'm hearing, yeah, no, that money that was allotted is going to transfer over for the expansion of the shelter. But I'm also hearing now that, well, we're going to reevaluate that money and how it's going to be spent at the shelter. I'm sorry, what you say and what you do are not matching up. Your actions are speaking a lot louder than your words. And I appreciate that you have put out flyers and that you had a meeting over there. But my concern is that you're doing things, and specifically what happened with the former chief who did not support this effort, that there's not transparency in the city. So I hope that maybe you'll reconsider, just like you did when all those, the last time I was here, when there was concerns from members of the public about all the changes that were desperately needed for animal care and control to protect the animals, that you guys postponed that effort. So I hope you'll do the same here. Thank you. The last person in the queue is Harold Barthold. Harold Barthold, 89011. I'm standing here today before you about some recent changes. We have a dog that's a companion animal. Dog is not fixed. We've been paying a breeder's permit as well as a licensing fee. The license fee this year has gone up 900%. The breeder's permit has doubled. And it feels like for a person who almost double dipped on I'm having to pay a more expensive license fee because the dog's not fixed I'm having to pay a breeder's permit for a dog that will never be bred but because he's not spayed or neutered He has to keep that breeder's permit and have those type of an increase in a one-year I mean literally the license used to be $15 for three years. It's now $50 per year and The breeders permit went from $110 to $200. We just received that in the mail yesterday. I think this is excessive. And the communication I got back when I brought this concern was, well, Hearts Alive Animal Shelter will do a spay of your pet. And I called them. That's $270. The pet will be out of service for three plus weeks. Can't go up on the couch, can't go upstairs. So we would literally have to move downstairs to be able to be near the animal. This is a concern. I understand the dog's not fixed, but those kind of increases, I'm sure any of you folks up there, would you like it if your car insurance went up 900%? This dog is literally more expensive to register a year than my car. And I think that's a problem. My car is $170 for a year. When I'm having to pay $250 to register a dog, and just listening to some of the comments, if you're trying to become in line with Clark County, I never had to have a license or a breeders claim for any of my pets. And I've been in Las Vegas since 77. So this isn't something new. We're somewhat new to the Henderson area being out here about five and a half years. But I think that's a concern and it's something that needs to be looked at. You know, I get everything's getting more expensive, but 900% that's a bit excessive. And I think it's something that needs to be looked at. Thank you. Thank you for your time. There is no one else in the public comment queue. Thank you. Then I will adjourn the regular meeting at this time.